Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #116707 > unrolled thread

Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-26 11:22 -0400
    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-26 20:09 -0400
      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-27 11:29 -0400
        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-05-27 18:03 +0200
          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 10:35 +1200
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-27 18:57 -0400
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-27 19:13 -0400
              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 14:21 +1200
                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 22:27 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-27 22:35 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 20:52 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-28 18:33 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-05-27 22:35 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:49 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 04:41 -0700
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 08:20 -0700
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 19:30 +1200
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:39 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-28 09:05 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 07:29 -0700
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-28 18:28 -0400
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:03 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:50 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:47 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 10:55 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 14:03 -0400
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 15:57 -0400
                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-06-01 06:16 +0000
                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 03:01 -0400
                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-06-01 08:17 +0000
                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 15:53 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 12:51 -0400
                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2018-06-01 17:23 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:11 -0400
                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 14:26 -0400
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0400
                                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 17:29 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:58 +0000
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 11:37 -0500
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 12:13 +1200
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 05:59 -0700
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-03 23:10 -0500
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-04 19:22 +1200
                                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-05 03:39 -0500
                                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-06 09:29 +1200
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:49 -0700
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:16 -0700
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:37 +0000
                                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 01:29 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-02 19:10 +1200
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-02 23:32 +1200
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 09:03 -0400
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:34 -0400
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:35 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 14:31 +0000
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:49 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 14:23 -0400
                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0400
                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-06-02 13:47 -0400
                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:16 +0000
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:46 -0400
          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:31 -0700
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-05-28 06:52 +0200
              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 22:09 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#116961

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 5:13:03 PM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
> > 
> > I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it 
> > compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
> 
> VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really 
> only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions 
> of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
> 
> 
> 
> > I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
> 
> The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the 
> professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.



Playing with Mint... forever a tenderfoot. 

Until chrisv offers up his 'first-rate' Mac workflow for assessment, there is no competition, just wild contentions. chrisv is an imbecile... people have auto-read his auto-posts. What he really should use is a script that keeps switching names, then flood posts have a possibility at being nearly as bothersome as he is. Sandman makes things up.  Here is a list of names Jonas Eklundh has admitted he attributes to chrisv "Cactus Pete", "Donald", "Donald Miller", "Horace McSwain", "Hymen", "meat", "Mike Weaver", "Modena IV Drid", "Omar Murad Asfour", "Rhino Plastee", "Soapy", "SopwithCamel", "Sunny Day", "Takuya Saitoh", "The Letter Q", "tmelmosfire", "zevon". Troll Killer Snit's computer has more cores than chrisv's. Troll Killer Snit wins. chrisv loses. So take that, chrisv. 

-- 
Eight things to never feed your dog!
http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_f8h9lv_-OPEN-WEBCAM---START-RECORD--
http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h
https://youtu.be/r7wys2JvBD0
Jonas Eklundh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116981

Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
> > 
> > I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it 
> > compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.

> VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really 
> only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions 
> of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.



> > I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)

> The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the 
> professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.

I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like 
VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan. 

-- 
Quote of the Week: "... Here's intelligent things, and it seems they 
want us for food. First, they'll smash us up -- ships, machines, guns, 
cities, all the order and organisation. All that will go. If we were the 
size of ants we might pull through. But we're not. It's all too bulky to 
stop. That's the first certainty." Eh? ..." --H.G. Wells' The War of the 
Worlds
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\                       Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
 / /\ /\ \  Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o   o| |      ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116987

On 2018-06-04 04:10:53 +0000, Ant said:
> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
>>> 
>>> I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it
>>> compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
>> 
>> VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really
>> only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions
>> of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
>> 
>> 
>>> I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
>> 
>> The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the
>> professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.
> 
> I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like
> VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan.

There is a free trail of both. It's a bit of a pain to do all the 
set-up for just a fairly short trial, but if you do then buy and 
register it you can keep teh virtual machine set-up.

   Parallels Desktop 13 trial (14-days):
   https://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/trial/

   VMWare Fusion 10 or Fusion 10 Pro trial (doesn't say how long):
   https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/fusion-evaluation.html


The choice between the two tends to come down to mainly personal 
perference. In terms of features they're pretty much the same with each 
slightly leap-frogging the other with every new release.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117040

Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> On 2018-06-04 04:10:53 +0000, Ant said:
> > Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
> >>> 
> >>> I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it
> >>> compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
> >> 
> >> VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really
> >> only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions
> >> of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
> >> 
> >> The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the
> >> professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.
> > 
> > I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like
> > VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan.

> There is a free trail of both. It's a bit of a pain to do all the 
> set-up for just a fairly short trial, but if you do then buy and 
> register it you can keep teh virtual machine set-up.

>   Parallels Desktop 13 trial (14-days):
>   https://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/trial/

>   VMWare Fusion 10 or Fusion 10 Pro trial (doesn't say how long):
>   https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/fusion-evaluation.html


> The choice between the two tends to come down to mainly personal 
> perference. In terms of features they're pretty much the same with each 
> slightly leap-frogging the other with every new release.

Well, they are expensive and I have no money since I am currently 
unemployed at the moment. IIRC, VMware consumer products are 30 days. 
Also, you forgot Player but that is limited since snapshots are SO 
useful. I currently use VirtualBox (Linux and Windows too!) which is 
free and decent.

-- 
Quote of the Week: "... Here's intelligent things, and it seems they 
want us for food. First, they'll smash us up -- ships, machines, guns, 
cities, all the order and organisation. All that will go. If we were the 
size of ants we might pull through. But we're not. It's all too bulky to 
stop. That's the first certainty." Eh? ..." --H.G. Wells' The War of the 
Worlds
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\                       Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
 / /\ /\ \  Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o   o| |      ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117087

On 2018-06-05 08:39:57 +0000, Ant said:

> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-04 04:10:53 +0000, Ant said:
>>> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it
>>>>> compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
>>>> 
>>>> VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really
>>>> only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions
>>>> of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
>>>> 
>>>> The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the
>>>> professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.
>>> 
>>> I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like
>>> VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan.
>> 
>> There is a free trail of both. It's a bit of a pain to do all the
>> set-up for just a fairly short trial, but if you do then buy and
>> register it you can keep teh virtual machine set-up.
>> 
>> Parallels Desktop 13 trial (14-days):
>> https://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/trial/
>> 
>> VMWare Fusion 10 or Fusion 10 Pro trial (doesn't say how long):
>> https://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/fusion-evaluation.html
>> 
>> The choice between the two tends to come down to mainly personal
>> perference. In terms of features they're pretty much the same with each
>> slightly leap-frogging the other with every new release.
> 
> Well, they are expensive and I have no money since I am currently
> unemployed at the moment. IIRC, VMware consumer products are 30 days.
> Also, you forgot Player but that is limited since snapshots are SO
> useful. I currently use VirtualBox (Linux and Windows too!) which is
> free and decent.

The best option is always Boot Camp* - that's not a virtualisation 
(competing with the macOS for resources) or "slow" emalution product, 
it's simply booting your Mac as full spec PC hardware.


* Depending on what version of Windoze or Linux you want to run of course.
  It's not good for ancient versions of Windoze.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116991

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:10:59 PM UTC-7, Ant wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
> > > 
> > > I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it 
> > > compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
> 
> > VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really 
> > only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions 
> > of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
> 
> 
> 
> > > I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
> 
> > The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the 
> > professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.
> 
> I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like 
> VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan. 
> 
> -- 
> Quote of the Week: "... Here's intelligent things, and it seems they 
> want us for food. First, they'll smash us up -- ships, machines, guns, 
> cities, all the order and organisation. All that will go. If we were the 
> size of ants we might pull through. But we're not. It's all too bulky to 
> stop. That's the first certainty." Eh? ..." --H.G. Wells' The War of the 
> Worlds
> Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
>   /\___/\                       Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
>  / /\ /\ \  Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
> | |o   o| |      ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
>    \ _ /
>     ( )



I just use a KF and will never see the flooding. Melzzz's flooding has made a complete ruin of usenet via GG, so I don't waste time browsing other threads with my client anymore. One good thing he has succeeded at with this crap is that the Melzzz filter will *never* be lifted. 

Just nonsense from Melzzz. But Melzzz has completely left reason behind and is just holding me culpable for the actions of himself. Who knows Perl, is an insomniac, has forged Michael Glasser Snit's ID, has passion for this shit and is a gigantic tantrum throwing mama's boy who, when he is quoted lying, posts all kinds of ridiculous crap even when he's NOT flooding... AND... who struggles to blame everything he is doing on "advocates" and has for his whole life? A shadow of observation, projected wisely, at the wrong time. Being an open format as it is, the listserv concept will never go away but it'll never be well known. Oh goodness, that is just tons of malarky. 

Michael Glasser Snit created at least 20 virtual systems in the last year or so. I am sure he and the cult-like herd of convenient friends are proud. 



--
E-commerce Simplified!!
http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116995

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:10:59 PM UTC-7, Ant wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-06-02 16:37:29 +0000, Ant said:
> > > 
> > > I remember using VPC in Mac OS X v10.2.x on my PB G4. I didn't like it 
> > > compared to VMware Workstation when I started using it.
> 
> > VirtualPC was fine, if slow, on my beige G3 in OS 8 and 9. I really 
> > only used it to access a Windoze clip art CD, create Windoze versions 
> > of FileMaker Pro solutions, and s-l-o-w-l-y play a couple of games.
> 
> 
> 
> > > I'm glad we have VirtualBox now. It is much nicer and free now. :)
> 
> > The free apps like VirtualBox aren't as easy to set-up as the 
> > professional products Parallels Desktop and VMWare Fusion.
> 
> I never got to try Parallels, but then both products are not free. I like 
> VMware Fusion as a Workstation fan. 
> 
> -- 
> Quote of the Week: "... Here's intelligent things, and it seems they 
> want us for food. First, they'll smash us up -- ships, machines, guns, 
> cities, all the order and organisation. All that will go. If we were the 
> size of ants we might pull through. But we're not. It's all too bulky to 
> stop. That's the first certainty." Eh? ..." --H.G. Wells' The War of the 
> Worlds
> Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
>   /\___/\                       Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
>  / /\ /\ \  Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
> | |o   o| |      ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
>    \ _ /
>     ( )



Facts about Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll

Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll is a nearly 60 year old guy who is single, broke and has no skills. He blames Snit for his loss of his wife and girlfriend. Steven is jealous of what Snit has and in a narcissistic rage repeatedly works to take it away from him. For over 10 years he has failed at even this. Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll is an utter failure in life.

Of his online life Steven says

    I've been booted off by past providers before because people
    complain about me and all my bullshit. I don't want to lose my ISP
    *again* but I still need my army of sock puppets so I continually
    search usenet for whatever servers I haven't yet been booted
    from.
    
Some examples where Steven has been booted

X10 Hosting booted Steven for inappropriate activity
http://tinyurl.com/z92qmz4

Comcast booted Steven for inappropriate activity 
http://tinyurl.com/h75nh9l

FreeHostingEU booted Steven for copyright infringement http://devsite.eu.pn

AwardSpace (atwebpages.com) booted Steven for breaking terms of service
http://demsites.atwebpages.com/pokeman

Imgur took down an image for breaking terms of service http://imgur.com/yv2XppE

Had a GigaNews account which was removed for harassing Snit

Stopped posting from his fretwizzen Google account since shortly after I complained. Seems he lost that too.

His wife booted Steven to the curb for cheating on her


    
Only site Steven Petruzzellis has pointed to that has ever been available
http://web.archive.org/web/20161019062351/http://www.oldneighborhoodrestaurant.net/
https://goo.gl/DMno6J

Made by the Go Daddy Website builder and is utter crap. Later he denied he said he was merely taking credit for someone else's work but Steven is the contact person http://tinyurl.com/hcw6dul
http://web.archive.org/web/20161202192456/http://www.reservationdiary.eu/eng/reservation/d76d1156-e9f7-43c1-b77b-b07189857820

He also bragged he was working on an update and showed it here https://vid.me/u6RK

The business still failed.

He likely went to the Go Daddy Website Builder after he failed to get WordPress installed.

https://mu.wordpress.org/forums/topic/13879


This is why Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll attacks Snit. 


Steven Petruzzellis was is divorced because his wife caught him screwing another woman.

Snit is married and by all appearances happily so. 
He never complains about his wife in COLA.


Steven Petruzzellis is living on charity of a friend in a single room.

Snit does not live in a mansion or even a high end home but has a house and a yard.


Steven Petruzzellis has two kids but no respect. He repeatedly called Ryan his "little screwup" and refers to his son Steve as a "dick" and worse. He says at least one of them likely hacked his computer and is a "mentally deficient child." He mocks his possible future daughter-in-law as someone who takes too many selfies and is focused only on herself

Snit has two kids (or more) and never speaks poorly of them in public. 
No reason to think they are not a happy family.


Steven Petruzzellis claims to be a stay at home dad who pays thousands of dollars for day care. Steven has no job and no purpose in life. Steven has given up and now seeks a mother-figure to date. 

Snit has his own business doing technical work and also teaches. 
Snit offers a true contribution to society. 
Teachers are truly under appreciated.

--
Top 15 Ways Snit Trolls
http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116890

In message <9dgQC.180134$IF4.166102@fx14.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 14:11, nospam wrote:

>> the windows version of virtual pc was a completely different product,
>> which was virtualization, not emulation.

> I am not sure about that. In those days, the then durrent 8086s didn't


Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.


-- 
Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't
advise you to try to invade

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116899

On 2018-06-01 21:37, Lewis wrote:

> Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
> is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.

At the time MSFT bought them,  the 8086s already oprovided the hardware
support needed to run multiple OS instances on same metal.


Read your history. Before that, doing same required a lot of software to
intercept various operations (such as virtual memory ops).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116903

On 2018-06-02 05:29:10 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> On 2018-06-01 21:37, Lewis wrote:
>> 
>> Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
>> is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.
> 
> At the time MSFT bought them,  the 8086s already oprovided the hardware
> support needed to run multiple OS instances on same metal.
> 
> Read your history. Before that, doing same required a lot of software to
> intercept various operations (such as virtual memory ops).

There's a bit of confusion because the name "Virtual PC" was hijacked 
by Microsoft.

The original product was "Connectix Virtual PC" - an *emulation* 
application for PowerPC Macs to be able to run Windows and DOS.

The Connectix product was bought up by Microsoft and the application's 
name was changed to "Microsoft Virtual PC", but it is here that it 
becomes two different products - one a slightly updated version of 
Connectix Virtual PC emulation application for PowerPC Macs (which 
didn't last long) and a separate *virtualisation* application for PCs 
to host other OSes (later renamed to to "Windows Virtual PC").

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116904

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On 2018-06-02 05:29:10 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> > On 2018-06-01 21:37, Lewis wrote:
> >> 
> >> Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
> >> is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.
> > 
> > At the time MSFT bought them,  the 8086s already oprovided the hardware
> > support needed to run multiple OS instances on same metal.
> > 
> > Read your history. Before that, doing same required a lot of software to
> > intercept various operations (such as virtual memory ops).
> 
> There's a bit of confusion because the name "Virtual PC" was hijacked
> by Microsoft.
> 
> The original product was "Connectix Virtual PC" - an *emulation* 
> application for PowerPC Macs to be able to run Windows and DOS.
> 
> The Connectix product was bought up by Microsoft and the application's
> name was changed to "Microsoft Virtual PC", but it is here that it 
> becomes two different products - one a slightly updated version of 
> Connectix Virtual PC emulation application for PowerPC Macs (which 
> didn't last long) and a separate *virtualisation* application for PCs
> to host other OSes (later renamed to to "Windows Virtual PC").
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC>

Mostly correct but you missed a detail: Connectix released Virtual PC 4
for Windows in 2001, before Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix
in 2003.

Connectix's Virtual PC 4 for Windows was a software virtualization
product. Processor instructions could execute directly but some aspects
such as memory mapping needed to be implemented in software by Virtual
PC. This has less overhead than full processor emulation in the Mac
version, but still not as fast as running the guest OS natively.

Microsoft's second major update for the Windows version (Virtual PC
2007) added support for hardware virtualization, which required a new
enough processor with the necessary support. For Intel processors that
was VT-x, the first implementation of which was on some Pentium 4
processors from late 2005. From a quick web search it looks like AMD's
equivalent was supported as well.

If you had a processor without hardware virtualization support, it was
still possible to do software virtualization in Virtual PC 2007. The
later "Windows Virtual PC" for Windows 7 initially required hardware
virtualization support but software virtualization was reinstated in an
update.

"Hardware virtualization" just refers to the processor providing direct
support for running a virtual machine, e.g. it can handle memory mapping
for the VM, whereas software emulation has more overhead.

In both hardware and software virtualization, non-processor aspects of
the virtual machine's hardware need to be emulated by the VM software or
passed through to the host in some way, e.g. graphics and storage.

Hardware virtualization is the method used by modern virtualizaton
software on x86 platforms (e.g. all VMware variants, Parallels Desktop,
VirtualBox, Microsoft's Hyper-V, etc).

As far as I know, almost all Intel processors in Macs support hardware
virtualization. The only exception I've spotted is the 1.5 GHz Core Solo
which was the low end option in the Early 2006 Mac Mini. Intel doesn't
list that particular speed variant but other Core Solo processors don't
support VT-x (probably a good idea as sharing the only processor core
with a virtual machine would not be pleasant).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116905

In article <petfta$1t3m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On 2018-06-02 05:29:10 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> > On 2018-06-01 21:37, Lewis wrote:
> >> 
> >> Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
> >> is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.
> > 
> > At the time MSFT bought them,  the 8086s already oprovided the hardware
> > support needed to run multiple OS instances on same metal.
> > 
> > Read your history. Before that, doing same required a lot of software to
> > intercept various operations (such as virtual memory ops).
> 
> There's a bit of confusion because the name "Virtual PC" was hijacked 
> by Microsoft.

microsoft didn't hijack anything. they bought virtual pc from connectix.

> The original product was "Connectix Virtual PC" - an *emulation* 
> application for PowerPC Macs to be able to run Windows and DOS.

that part is true, and more than just windows and dos. 

> The Connectix product was bought up by Microsoft and the application's 
> name was changed to "Microsoft Virtual PC", but it is here that it 
> becomes two different products - one a slightly updated version of 
> Connectix Virtual PC emulation application for PowerPC Macs (which 
> didn't last long) and a separate *virtualisation* application for PCs 
> to host other OSes (later renamed to to "Windows Virtual PC").

nope. 

the pc version existed *before* microsoft bought it and why microsoft
bought it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116920

On 2018-06-02 09:03, nospam wrote:

> the pc version existed *before* microsoft bought it and why microsoft
> bought it.


Microsoft saw VMware gain steam, and wanted in on the game. Buying
Connextix that had a similar product was the solution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116921

In article <SqBQC.218092$go7.128132@fx08.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> Microsoft saw VMware gain steam, and wanted in on the game. Buying
> Connextix that had a similar product was the solution.

no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116907

In message <GWpQC.129627$wG5.96524@fx02.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 21:37, Lewis wrote:

>> Of course you aren't. A few seconds with Google would have show you that
>> is precisely why MSFT bought them, for virtualization.

> At the time MSFT bought them,  the 8086s already oprovided the hardware
> support needed to run multiple OS instances on same metal.

And? This doesn't change the facts of why Microsoft bought them.

> Read your history. Before that, doing same required a lot of software to
> intercept various operations (such as virtual memory ops).

You are very confused as to what this thread is about. Someone said MSFT
bought Virtual PC for virtualization. You claimed to be "unsure" (*your
way of stepping in shit and then doubling down as you have done
since).

You were wrong, You are still wrong,. This is exactly why MSFT bought
Virtual PC.


-- 
History had wanted surgery. Sometimes Dr Chopper is the only surgeon to
hand. There's something final about an axe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116912

On 2018-06-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 14:11, nospam wrote:
>
>> the windows version of virtual pc was a completely different product,
>> which was virtualization, not emulation.
>
> I am not sure about that.

You're not sure of much of anything, because you don't bother to learn
about things before opening your trap. Virtual PC for Windows did indeed
use virtualization.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116878

On 2018-06-01 13:23, Auric__ wrote:

> Sure it did, it emulated Windows very well... when installed on top of the 
> emulated system. I never ran VPC on a Mac, but I remember reading that it was 

Actually, it emulated a 386 very well, allowing Windows to exist in that
environment. It also ran DOS too.

I cannot remember if Windows required special drivers or whether it
emulated the same devices so that Windows really thought it was on a
stock PC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116880

In article <OagQC.180133$IF4.108974@fx14.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


> I cannot remember if Windows required special drivers or whether it
> emulated the same devices so that Windows really thought it was on a
> stock PC.

virtual pc provided the necessary drivers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116919

On 2018-05-31 15:57, nospam wrote:
> In article <WPqdnYxTqopypY3GnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>>> I remember Virtual PC. Emulation
>>>>
>>>> Virtualization ≠ Emulation.
>>>
>>> virtual pc was an emulator which ran on powerpc macs and emulated x86.
>>
>> Irrelevant.  This thread is about VM's.
> 
>  virtual pc was an emulator.

Correct.  Irrelevant to this thread.

-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117044

In message <Rtudnc7HAaDXRY_GnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-31 15:57, nospam wrote:
>> In article <WPqdnYxTqopypY3GnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>
>>>>>> I remember Virtual PC. Emulation
>>>>>
>>>>> Virtualization ≠ Emulation.
>>>>
>>>> virtual pc was an emulator which ran on powerpc macs and emulated x86.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.  This thread is about VM's.
>> 
>>  virtual pc was an emulator.

> Correct.  Irrelevant to this thread.

Virtual PC on the Mac was an emulator.

Virtual PC also had a version for Windows/Intel that was *not* an
emulator. It is this product that Microsoft wanted Virtual PC for, and
why they bought them.

-- 
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web